This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

You seem to have completed the full circle: wikipedia - citizendium - conservapedia and wikipedia, back again!

Personally, I like to read your articles anywhere, but it is most convenient to have them here. And frankly, I was surprised who long you stayed at the last place!

DiEb ( talk) 08:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

hey thanks! Rjensen ( talk) 13:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Good to see you back at WP! Say, I'm still looking forward to seeing improvements to the Wisconsin Idea. Good luck! RobSmith nobs ( talk) 22:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Rjensen ( talk) 03:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any good sources at your fingertips on the relationship between Stalin's decision to publicly disband the Comintern and reciept of Lend-Lease aid? Thank you? nobs ( talk) 20:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

good question. I'll look. Rjensen ( talk) 20:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

marxist.org carries this 1947 report [1] which says the Comintern was "dissolved in the summer of 1943 in return for lend-lease from Wall Street." Most other online sources (David Brinkley, et al) say it was dissolved as a gesture of good faith in agreement to join the post-war UN. The 1947 report perhaps is plausible. nobs ( talk) 22:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Nobody knows what Stalin intended, but it does make sense to see it as a goodwill gesture. LendLease started in 1941, not 1943, and the money came from Congress, not Wall Street loans. Rjensen ( talk) 22:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Lend Lease from Wall Street can mean the manufactured supplies exported from publicly traded companies. nobs ( talk) 02:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Moscow believed that finance capitalism controlled all of America, including Congress and FDR. Rjensen ( talk) 02:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

That would fit with this text, which actually is a Trotskyite publication. Haynes, Klehr and Anderson, Soviet World of American Communism, may make the same claim (p. 12?), I just don't have a copy handy. nobs ( talk) 05:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I am glad you back also. I appreciate your concern for the article. I believe that the Korean expedition or invasion is signifigant enough to put in the article. You mentioned that it was a minor incident. I believe it was a war. Why do you believe the incident is minor? I understand getting reliable sources. However, the person I souces used references. { Cmguy777 ( talk) 02:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)}

Thanks for the nice words. :) well 1871 was not a war. A Korean fort opened fire on the American fleet, which retailiated and sailed away. The goal was to open diplomatic relations--which failed, so nothing came of it. (The US goal was to replicate the opening of Japan by Perry.) An undergraduate student termpaper is not a RS. It'sworth, in my opinion, a separate article (properly sourced to "Whose "Barbarism"? Whose "Treachery"? Race and Civilization in the Unknown United States-Korea War of 1871," by Gordon H. Chang, Journal of American History, Vol. 89, No. 4 (Mar., 2003), pp. 1331-1365 in JSTOR Rjensen ( talk) 04:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Three forts were taken over, hundreds of Koreans were killed, and the Koreans themselves view it as a war. I called it an invasion. I define a war as an act of violence upon members of one group against members of another group. You did mention that it was an attempt to open up trade relations with Korea, I totally agree, just like Admiral Perry and Japan. That is why I believe it worth putting in as a segment. Especially in light of the Korean War. American troops currently are over there and I am not sure if people know that U.S. conflict started in 1871. Are you willing to have a segment in the Article? Thanks { Cmguy777 ( talk) 05:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)}

War is pretty well defined in history and this wasn't a war. When people shoot at a warship carring 9-inch guns they are asking for trouble then (and now). The topic is worth a couple sentences in the Grant article. Note that the episode has been politicized in Korea and we have to avoid that POV. As for the implications--the Koreans alienated an American ally they soon needed against Japan. Bad mistake. Rjensen ( talk) 05:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I do agree the U.S. could have protected the Koreans against the Japanese. America was flexing it's muscles at the Korean expedition. I will try to find any book sources for the Article. Yes. I do not want POV. The U.S. Navy needed something like this to get on the map, since Britain at that time had the best Navy. I do not believe this is in many History books, if any at all, but it was a signifigant U.S. Naval-Marine joint operation.

the only good source is Chang's article at in JSTOR Rjensen ( talk) 06:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I got the information, although Chang calls it an "unknown" war. I called it an incident, somewhere between an "expedition" and a "war". I did find a book on U.S. Naval history by Nathan Miller. Just from reading Chang, this incident, remains a hot bed of controversy in Korea. I definately kept the information factual away from POV.{ Cmguy777 ( talk) 18:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)}

You mentioned that Grant had no role in the Comstock Act, but it became law through his signature. How is that non involvment? Also, should the Scandal cabinet be in the Presidency article or the USG Presidential administration scandals article? I appreciate all the edits you have made in the Presidency article. { Cmguy777 ( talk) 16:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)}

Thanks!. all presidents sign hundreds of acts of Congress; it's the ones he played a major role in writing that deserve attention here. The scandals need brief mention in the presidency article and full treatment in the Scandals argument, in my opinion. Rjensen ( talk) 16:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I totally agree about the scandals section. The Scandals section got a GA status. :) I am hoping this article and the USG article will get GA status. It should be kept in the article. I was just trying to reduce the size of this article.{ Cmguy777 ( talk) 18:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)}

I put the Comstock Act in because it affected all Americans and Comstock himself was the "moral Zsar" of America, with Grant's permission. { Cmguy777 ( talk) 18:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)}

Grant's biographers like Smith and McFeely never mention Comstock, and Grant probably never read it or commented on it. Rjensen ( talk) 19:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Smith and McFeely did not cover Grant's complete presidency. If a source is valid, other then the previous mentioned, I believe it can be used. Daniel P. Carpenter is a valid source. Grant was reported to have not signed the bill until he was assured Comstock would enforce the law, himself. Grant must have known what was in the bill in order to get Comstock's assurance. { Cmguy777 ( talk) 19:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)}

The scandal section arrangement in the Second Term looks good! { Cmguy777 ( talk) 01:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)}

The Presidency of USG article passed GA! Thanks Rjensen for all your help . { Cmguy777 ( talk) 03:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)}

Hello:

I am a US historian working on a book on the history of the money question. I'm very interested in using this image:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/1896GOP.JPG/380px-1896GOP.JPG

found on this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1896GOP.JPG

But to use it I would need bibliographic information--a specific source. Do you know where I might find this information?

Thank you

Michael O'Malley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.114.22 ( talk) 14:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Michael--I scanned it years ago from a textbook (maybe Blum's American Nation), but do not have more details. It appears to be a GOP poster but might be a cartoon from Puck or Judge (1896) Rjensen ( talk) 16:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Edits look good! { 74.38.6.109 ( talk) 01:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)}

I read through all of your edits. They are really good. The article should get GA approval. Priceless. Excellent work. Cheers. I apoligize for any quibbles. { Cmguy777 ( talk) 22:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)}

thanks! --it' s pleasure working with you. :) Rjensen ( talk) 23:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there anyone that can give this an Article review? { Cmguy777 ( talk) 01:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)}

Regarding this edit - there's a saying around here, " Please do not bite the newcomers". Also, some old timers edit without logging in, so it might not even be a newbie.   Will Beback  talk  08:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

yes--I'm all in favor of helping newbies with their first edits. I draw the line when they repeatedly erase material based on a poor understanding of history, and offer nothing in return. Rjensen ( talk) 09:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Even when we think our colleagues have made mistakes, that's no reason to treat them with disrespect. As it happens, I think he's made a good point and your edit is not necessarily the best solution.   Will Beback  talk  09:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

In the Presidency of USG I expanded on your idea "defied the strong American hatred of corruption". I rewrote and put "Grant’s personal will often strayed from normal Presidential orthodoxy and his administration defied the American tradition of a government ruled with morals and ethics." Do you accept? Otherwise, I can revert. Thanks. { Cmguy777 ( talk) 19:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)}

well I think the word "corruption" or Political Corruption needs to be there. it's not just morals and ethics but a standard of public behavior--and a distrust of politicians--that's involved. ~~

I changed to: "Grant’s personal will often strayed from normal Presidential orthodoxy and his administration defied the American tradition of a government run without political corruption and favortisms."

yes, thanks. Rjensen ( talk) 20:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

A much improved synopsis of labor union growth. I rarely see one written that adheres well to neutrality, and doesn't promulgate a particular point of view. Kudos FellGleaming ( talk) 09:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

thanks! Rjensen ( talk) 18:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The main Ulysses S. Grant article is currently being reviewed. Here is the talk page link: Talk:Ulysses S. Grant. The reviewer is requesting that certain edits for improvement be made for GA status. I am attempting to make them, however, the reviewer gave a seven day limitation. Could you help out on this one? You are an extremely good editor and any changes you make to the USG article would be extremely valuable. It would be good for all the USG articles to get the GA rating. Thanks for your help. { Cmguy777 ( talk) 20:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)}

yes I'll work on it for style. Rjensen ( talk) 20:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That's good!!! { Cmguy777 ( talk) 21:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)}

Your edits are much appreciated. Article looks allot better and vastly improved. { Cmguy777 ( talk) 21:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)}

Hi Rjensen. I have gotten as far as Petersburg Campaign. I would appriciate if you could read the USG Civil War summary for accuracy. I have been reading the separate articles on each battle. That really helped. Any input would be appreciated. { Cmguy777 ( talk) 22:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)}

I'm on the road with limited internet but will take a look. Rjensen ( talk) 22:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The final editing is getting done on the USG Civil War summary on the talk page. I am currently adding sources. I have added links and segment titles. It would be helpful if you could make comments. Thanks. { Cmguy777 ( talk) 03:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)}

Hello Rjensen. Did you get a look at the new edits on USG? Please let me know your opinions on the changes. Thanks. { Cmguy777 ( talk) 00:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)}

I'll try--I'm on the road with limited opportunities. Rjensen ( talk) 01:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Good edit on Grant. "Recapture" is accurate. { Cmguy777 ( talk) 05:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)}

Hi Rjensen. Thanks for your recent edit on the "autumnal outbreaks" quotation. How does the Civil War sections look? Are there any areas of improvement for the entire article? Cmguy777 ( talk) 19:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Schroeder-Lein and Richard Zuczek claims Johnson was racist and unwilling to extend aid to African Americans. Johnson was quoted saying concerning Frederick Douglas "I know that d----d Douglas, he's just like any nigger, and he would sooner cut a white man's throat as not." Louis Trefousse said that Johnson's "defense of slavery and white supremacy" remained constant. Even Eric L. McKitrick says that George W. Morgan, a white supremacist, claimed Johnson was a "godsend". I did not say Johnson was a white supremacist, but had sympathies. Johnson opposed almost every legislation by the Radical Republicans to help blacks. Also Johnson had no sympathy for the blacks in the Memphis and New Orleans riots. One text book even claims that Johnson, when it came to race, was a thorough going White Supremacist. I respect your edits. Maybe it would be good to call Johnson a "conservative" when it came to race. { Cmguy777 ( talk) 06:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)}

The issue in fall 1865 was not race or white supremacy, it was Confederate nationalism. Rjensen ( talk) 06:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is good and I was not trying to "beat up" on President Johnson with POV. I believe that since he was President his racial viewpoints were signifigant during Reconstruction. In his annual message to Congress in 1867 he said, "Negroes have shown less capacity for government than any other race of people. No independent government of any form has ever been successful in their hands. On the contrary, wherever they have been left to their own devices they have shown a constant tendency to relapse into barbarism." Johnson had previously said,"The blacks in the South are entitled to be well and humanely governed, and to have the protection of just laws for all their rights of person and property. If it were practicable at this time to give them a Government exclusively their own, under which they might manage their own affairs in their own way, it would become a grave question whether we ought to do so, or whether common humanity would not require us to save them from themselves." { Cmguy777 ( talk) 16:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)}

The source contention between Johnson and the Radicals was that the Confederate States never ceased to be part of the Union. Johnson claimed, "It is clear to my apprehension that the States lately in rebellion are still members of the National Union. When did they cease to be so? The "ordinances of secession" adopted by a portion (in most of them a very small portion) of their citizens were mere nullities." With this viewpoint Johnson believed that Radical Reconstruction, i.e. aiding African Americans, was unconstitutional. Johnson oversimplifies the signifigance and costs of the Civil War, in my opinion, and attempts to justify African American suppression constitutionally. { Cmguy777 ( talk) 16:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)}

the race issue was not at stake in 1865-- Johnson and the radicals both strongly supported the 13th amendment. There were issues on whether the war was really won, whether Confed nationalism was dead, and who (Congress or President) would decide the issues. But there was no debate over white supremacy in 1865. So injecting the issue at this point in he article is anachronistic. Rjensen ( talk) 18:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand. Does Johnson's racial views have anyplace in the article? Otherwise I will respectfully drop the subject. { Cmguy777 ( talk) 18:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)}

Oh yes they become important regarding his later vetoes of the Civil Rights Bill and the Freedman Bureau Bill Rjensen ( talk) 18:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. Sounds good. { Cmguy777 ( talk) 19:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)}

Here is a potential edit: Johnson's veto of the Civil Rights bill in addition to two Freedman's Bureau bills, were the result of his racist views and "unwillingness to extend any federal assistance to freedpeople". Is this accurate?

The veto is pretty important and needs a little more detail. Racism is not quite the right term here--it was special rights for blacks that Johnson opposed. Rjensen ( talk) 20:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this acceptable?

Earlier, on Feburary 13, 1866, Johnson had vetoed the Freedman's bill that extended the Freedman's Bureau and gave juristiction over protecting civil rights for Freedmen. Although Johnson shared Congress's desire to protect the Freedmen, he was unwilling to give them federal assistance. { Cmguy777 ( talk) 21:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)}

Congress had made a 15 member committee in December to make rules for the former Confederate States admittance. It was not until Johnson vetoed the Freedmans Bureau bill that the Congress refused to accept Representatives and Senators from the Rebellion states. { Cmguy777 ( talk) 21:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)}

i think it was sept 1865 when the newly elected southerners were not seated (the clerk did not call their names) Rjensen ( talk) 21:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I made changes to Moderate responses and Johnson's vetos, mainly, added historical context. Johnson vetoed the Freedman's Bill two times. You can let me know if this is acceptable or just revert. I appreciate your input and advise. Thanks. { Cmguy777 ( talk) 00:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)}

looks good ") Rjensen ( talk) 00:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is Edmund Burke referred to as British? I know he identified himself as a man of the Empire for most of his career, but he was born and bred in Ireland, went to TCD, and cared deeply about Irish issues for much of his adult life (Eg, Catholic emancipation.) Surely Ireland deserves him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.200.113 ( talk) 17:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Ireland in those days was part of Britain. Rjensen ( talk) 18:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of that. But certain other prominent thinkers of the time (Think Jonathon Swift) are described as either Irish or Anglo Irish. Britain refers to the island of Britain, not to Ireland. A Scotsman can be considered a British but an Antrim man? Never! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.200.113 ( talk) 19:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Ireland was part of Great Britain, and Burke did his most important work in London, not Dublin. Webster's 3rd: "British" = "of, relating to, or characteristic of Great Britain or its inhabitants" Rjensen ( talk) 19:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

How very droll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.200.113 ( talk) 20:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I appreciate your input into the SDA article, however it makes little sense to say that SDAs have in common with "common" Christian theology. There is no such thing as "common" Christian theology -- Christian theology is extremely diverse, from Catholic, to Orthodox, to liberal protestant, to evangelical, to pentecostal. SDAism is closest to evangelicalism, as has been acknowledged by many scholars. Tonicthebrown ( talk) 12:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Evangelicalism?? of the 19th century variety --somewhat yes; of the 20th century variety ("fundamentalism") probably not. "Evangelical" is ambiguous and seriously misleading here. I think the text is only trying to say they're Protestants (probably to answer some Fundamentalists who say they are not really Christians). Adventists always kept their distance from Fundamentalists. Rjensen ( talk) 12:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

that's fine, we'll just leave it at "protestant Christian". Tonicthebrown ( talk) 12:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Rjensen ( talk) 12:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:Judge-2-6-1897.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 00:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I have made the edit for the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-02-27/Irish American concensus, can I get a preposal for the other page, or is this good to close? -- / MWOAP| Notify Me\ 01:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:Grange1873.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 21:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Please check the citation before you claim something unreliable. There is plenty of sources at the linked site that you will be hard press to refute, namely John Kennedy and Mrs. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy in a photograph in the National Geographic, a grant issued by the Republic of Ireland, the U.S. Government and the Kennedy Library. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 05:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

first of all it's trivia. secondly is a joke--there are companies that invent and sell these "coat of arms" to anybody with $. Rjensen ( talk) 06:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are people that just buy some printed copy of some clip-art invented coat of arms made by some scheming company. However, the President's were granted to him officially by the Chief Herald of Ireland as ordered by the President of the Republic of Ireland. His family's arms are real and not invented by some company for profit; the President actually didn't even have to pay the artist to render he painting as those costs were covered by Ireland's government. And trivial, yes, a bit. So is the five cent stamp that made it into the article. If the stamp disappears later, and some of the other more trivial things, then I would not argue the coat of arms stay; however, 'til then, I would insist it does. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 08:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rjensen, I think the IP has a point. This has nothing to do with Namibia, at all, and should be somwhere in German history articles, but not here. Furthermore, it is in no way vandalism and should therefore not have been reverted with the rollback function have received a more descriptive edit summary than just "Undid...". Please reconsider. I do appreciate your insight in Nazi Germany topics but please find a better-suited place for this. -- Pgallert ( talk) 20:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that serious academic discussions of the impact of the history of Namibia on a main theme in world history are indeed important for the Wiki users interested in Namibia. The Germans were a major part of Namibian history--it's hard to ignore them: they came, they massacred, they left, yes, but what did they take back to Europe from Namibia? Rjensen ( talk) 22:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

But this is the main country article, an overview over what outlines Namibia. What the Germans did after they left is important, but not here. There is a lot of space in History of Namibia, there is German South-West Africa, and there is a special article on the genocide, Herero and Namaqua Genocide.

Look, I cannot fight this all by myself, so I will let it stand if you don't give way. The reason is that there is only one more editor interested in Namibia (Just try the same thing on Germany), and also that I have so far lost all of the fights of this sort. Just ask youself the question whether this is one of the top-100 facts one must know about Namibia. I think not. I also disagree to "they came, they massacred, they left, ...", but that is a minor issue. Pgallert ( talk) 18:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

there are two points here: was the Namibia massacre a model of the Holocaust, (which historians debate pro and con), and is it important for Namibia or is it some minor side issue? I suggest it is one of the main reasons the history of Namibia is of broad worldwide interest. Now I think you're right it should be covered more in the history article than in the country article so I'll try to work that out with you. Rjensen ( talk) 22:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

For Namibia, I would reduce the paragraphs below to the two italicised statements, provided that the refs that now support the paragraphs also support these singular statements. (The numbers of people killed is duplicated, the existing statement being more specific than yours.)

"Lebensraum" and "Konzentrationslager" ("concentration camp") were coined in the 1900-1910 era regarding German policies in its colony of South-West Africa. During the first decade of the 20th century imperial Germany colonized the land and committed genocide, leading to the deaths of 60%-80% of the local Herero and Nama peoples.
Later Nazi use of "Lebensraum" and "Konzentrationslager" suggests an important question: did Wilhelmine colonization and genocide in Namibia influence Nazi plans to conquer and settle Eastern Europe, enslave and murder millions of Slavs, and exterminate Gypsies and Jews? The German experience in Namibia was a crucial precursor to Nazi colonialism and genocide and that personal connections, literature, and public debates served as conduits for communicating colonialist and genocidal ideas and methods from the colony to Germany

For Herero and Namaqua Genocide, the whole set of statements should form a new section, and if possible, it could be expanded (what are the pros and cons to call it holocaust - you might know that German government disagreed to even call it genocide).

For History of Namibia it could probably go there as-is. Would be great if you could blend it in. Same goes for German South-West Africa. -- Pgallert ( talk) 10:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I reworked it--OK? Rjensen ( talk) 12:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic, looks good. I shifted one ref to the middle of the sentence to make clear who supports what claim. Hope I haven't messed it up.

Could you, if you have time, update the other entries I mentioned? -- Your English is better than mine, and from what I currently see, the paragraph as it originally stood is not covered anywhere within the Namibia project. -- Pgallert ( talk) 14:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems you're busy... I've tried myself to update the articles History of Namibia, German South-West Africa, and Herero and Namaqua Genocide. Would be great if you could have a look at whether I did it right. Again, my comments were not meant to say your contributions have no value, just that we need to have a better place for them. -- Pgallert ( talk) 13:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

you might want to check Death's comments about us as editors in the signpost articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-03-01/In_the_news... no good deed ever goes unpunished. Tirronan ( talk) 01:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thought about a reply but since you and others were involved that might not be fair. Get in touch with the others would you? I would like to coordinate a joint response. Tirronan ( talk) 01:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the heads-up. The article in Signpost is stupid and the one sentence mention of Wikipedia is not worthy of a reply, so I'd recommend ignoring it. :) Rjensen ( talk) 04:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to Death's spouting off about how unfair we were while he the source of all truth... Regardless, I won't work or reply to him again. Tirronan ( talk) 12:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

		The WikiChevrons
		awarded for your outstanding contributions to Army Nursing, you edits have added materially to the quality of the article. Thank you! Bullock Talk 15:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

my pleasure...some more is coming. Rjensen ( talk) 15:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Can I please get your input on this matter - kkk is it just me or is there a lot of POV pushing on this page ? For example - The first Klan was founded in 1865 by Tennessee veterans of the Confederate Army. Klan groups spread throughout the South. The Klan's purpose was to restore white supremacy in the aftermath of the American Civil War. The Klan resisted Reconstruction by assaulting, murdering and intimidating freedmen and white progressives within the Republican Party. In 1870 and 1871 the federal government passed the Force Acts, which were used to prosecute Klan crimes. Prosecution of Klan crimes and enforcement of the Force Acts suppressed Klan activity. In 1874 and later, however, newly organized and openly active paramilitary organizations such as the White League and the Red Shirts started a fresh round of violence aimed at suppressing Republican voting and running Republicans out of office. These contributed to white conservative Democrats regaining political power in the Southern states in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Not one Citation for this whole paragraph - Are there suppose to be citations ? I also noticed you listed a PHD in history ! May I ask you some question - many Editors are pushing the Idea that some how the (D) and (R) changed places - I am finding a hard time finding any reliable sources for this claim ! Also - communism is on the Far left of EU politics - Fascism is on the hard right of EU politics > Is that correct ! The usa Far left is totalitarian and the far right is anorcy ? ( is that correct ) Is it the progressive that is the common link that has imposed the EU politics onto the USA ? Also - why are so many Senior editors mean on that page ! Thank you I am just seeking the truth - -- Kimmy ( talk) 11:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Do you see the line "white progressives within the Republican Party.) Where do they make such a leap - When Progressive (D) presidents supported and were members of the Klan -- Kimmy ( talk) 11:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll recheck the kkk article--last time I looked it seemed ok. no president ever joined the kkk (but a couple supreme court justices did so--oddly enough they were named White and Black) Rjensen ( talk) 11:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you I suppose it was you that cleaned up the page - Great Job - now I can look up the books and citations and start reading - thank you again! White and Black that is to wired , I thought President Woodrow Wilson and President McKinley were members of the KKK, -- Kimmy ( talk) 09:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure -- it was chief justice Edward White and Justice Hugo Black who were Klan members (but left long before they joined the Supreme Court). Rjensen ( talk) 09:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

MCARTHUR SIR AS A KOREAN WAR VETERAN I CANNOT . BELEIVE THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BELEIVED THAT GEN MCARTHUR WAS A HERO AND DESERVED THE CMH IN KOREA NOT ONE VETERAN THAT I WAS SERVING WITH LIKED THE MAN I WAS GLAD WHEN TRUMAN FIRED I CELEBRATED, SFC CF HIGGINS POMPANO BCH FL

You may not be aware, but your move has eliminated the article's and talk page's history. I'm not sure if you can fix it now, but in the future you should keep in mind that there are ways to move a page and keep its history in tact. Ltwin ( talk) 05:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

no, the history of the old article and talk page is preserved at this address Rjensen ( talk) 10:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately, in this case it was possible to fix the cut-and-paste move without resorting to the complex procedure listed here. But in future, please use the "move" button or ask for an administrator's assistance. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 12:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 19:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to personally thank you for your time, help, and knowledge on the American Civil War page. It was a much needed revision/addition. Best, -- Ducha mps_ comb MFA 18:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

thanks!  :) Rjensen ( talk) 19:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that you worked on this article recently. There's a convoluted sentence in the History section that needs work: "The Northern Pacific Railway Company was chartered on July 2, 1864, created by an Act of Congress and signed a legislation which was chartered by President Abraham Lincoln thus giving birth to the first northern transcontinental railroad in the United States established to connect the Great Lakes with Puget Sound." I'm not sure what the first half of the sentence is supposed to be saying. Can you fix it? Thanks! 75.2.209.226 ( talk) 03:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

yes I will fix it now. thanks for the heads-up Rjensen ( talk) 03:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Rjensen,

You really need to come to grips with how the release of the Venona decrypted material has removed doubt about the identities of those inside and outside the U.S. federal government who were actively engaged in spying for the Soviet Union or working to further Communist interests to the detriment of the United States. Are you related to Harry Hopkins? How do you explain your fanaticism in controlling all Wiki information regarding Hopkins' relationship with the Soviet Union during WWII? You do not have a monopoly on presenting material about Hopkins. If you continue to delete my sourced addition to the Hopkins Wiki page, this will end up in the Wiki dispute resolution. Ffolkes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ffolkes ( talk • contribs) 21:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

"spying" -- what does that mean? That HH told the Russians top secret American plans? Yes, that was his job and the world of course knew that. Rjensen ([[User talk:Rjens-- 68.231.7.68 ( talk) 17:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)en#top|talk]]) 21:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Odd that you reject Iskhak Akhmerov's account of Harry Hopkins exploits as a Soviet agent because Akhmerov is/was a Communist, but you accept the word of KGB Lt.-General Vitaly Pavlov that Hopkins was not an NKVD/GRU agent, when Pavlov is/was also a Communist.

It was Harry Hopkins' "job" to help the Soviets obtain uranium? That is what he attempted to achieve as head of Lend Lease. But are you actually saying that it was Hopkins job to pass along top secret information on The Manhattan Project to Moscow? If FDR wanted the Soviets involved in the American atomic bomb project, why did he purposely exclude them from the project even after they joined the Allies? While Hopkins may not have operated in the fashion of Soviet spies Fuchs and Hall, who passed on atomic secrets to the Soviets, Hopkins value to the Soviets was his influence with FDR and his own authority as head of Lend Lease. Hopkins was more than simpatico with the Soviets agenda in the U.S. and their post war goals in Europe. As a highly placed government official, Hopkins put a foreign country's interests ahead of his own. That is how Hopkins "spying" was manifested.-- Ffolkes ( talk) 17:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Venona does not mention the Manhattan Project and Hopkins knew none of the details. Venona does not say "Hopkins put a foreign country's interests ahead of his own." -- indeed no reliable source does. The uranium story by the way is a false myth. Rjensen ( talk) 00:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Why would intercepted communications between U.S. Soviet spies and Moscow say "Hopkins put a foreign country's interests ahead of his own?" That doesn't make sense. Where did you get the notion that Hopkins didn't know the "details" of The Manhattan Project? Did he know as much about it as General Leslie Groves? No. Did he know as much about it as FDR? Yes. As far as the uranium story, in 1949 the State Department acknowledged that in 1943 export licenses had been granted to the Soviet Union for shipment of 1,500 Ibs. of uranium compounds.-- Ffolkes ( talk) 17:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

uranium was not a controlled substance. It's used to make anti-tank weapons, which the Soviets needed to stop Russian tanks. who made the statement "Hopkins put a foreign country's interests ahead of his own"??? Rjensen ( talk) 19:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rjensen, thanks for your work at Mainline Protestant. However this sentence seems to be missing something. Since you've only recently added it I was hoping you could clarify this sentence:

"The issue of slavery moderately antislavery Protestants, including William Ellery Channing, Francis Wayland, and Horace Bushnell, to reconcile their contradictory loyalties to the Bible and to antislavery reform."

Thanks again for your work. Ltwin ( talk) 23:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the heads-up. I wrote it in a word processor and did a cut and paste that didn't quite work. I'll fix it. Rjensen ( talk) 02:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I am unclear what your edit summary meant: "please don't rewrite the sources". In the future, you may want to consider making (and explaining) requests on my talk page instead, so that they are not ambiguous. Cheers. Agha Nader ( talk) 19:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi!

I was just shortening the redundant material to improve the overall quality of the Kenya page. If you read the Colonial history closely you will see it is highly redundant with what appears to be rather minute details for an overview. Not to mention that there is a link to the main article on colonial history anyway. Thanks! ScottPAnderson ( talk) 14:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the explanation. Rjensen ( talk) 14:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, are you ok with my proposed improvements to the colonial history? Please undo your revert if you have no issues. Otherwise we can discuss it on the talk page. Thanks. ScottPAnderson ( talk) 17:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I deleted some peripheral info, but I think the article needs coverage of the Germans, Indians and British settlers. Rjensen ( talk) 00:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You may be interested in this discussion. 75.2.209.226 ( talk) 16:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I am a right/conservative-libertarian, and the GOP is most definitely not libertarian. I'm not arguing there are none (Ron Paul is one of the few true Libertarian Republicans), but they do not form a significant faction in the GOP. First off, they support 'social conservatism', which is government-enforced morality. That is not libertarian. Second, they support an interventionist foreign policy; libertarians support a non-interventionalist one. Third, dislike of government is not the same as libertarianism; conservatives gripe about big government, but most want to keep things as they are. The GOP certainly has libertarian influences, but is not truly a libertarian party. TN 05 —Preceding undated comment added 01:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC).

you make some interesting points--but they should be on the GOP page so others can comment. Note that 1) Rand Paul and Ron Paul are in bed with the social conservatives re abortion. 2) the GOP supports a self-defense policy against terrorists (the Cold War against Russia and China is long past); 3) the GOP is trying to stop Big Government, and the libertarians are only talking about it. :) Rjensen ( talk) 03:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Rand and Ron are moderate 'conservative' libertarians (as am I), not hard-core like the Libertarian party. Also, non-interventionism does not mean 'pacifism' or 'isolationism; It actually encourages a strong national defense to defend against attacks. However, the GOP has been controlled for the past decade by neocons, who advocate the opposite of non-interventionism, interfering with the affairs of other countries. Third, even though both the GOP and Libertarians supposedly both dislike big govt., the GOP was, up until their defeat in '08, somewhat supporting big govt/debt policies like 'No Child Left Behind' and the Stimulus Package. Even though the GOP and libertarians agree on many things, mainly economic, they have a huge disagreement with social policy. While I don't disagree the Republican Party is mildly libertarian, it's policy is not. :) TN 05 19:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, do you know why there is an East Africa Protectorate article and a British East Africa article? Seems to me they should be combined into one, unless I'm missing something? Although the British East Africa page has more text, the East Africa Protectorate page seems to have better links back to Imperial British East Africa Company and forward to Kenya Colony and Kenya via the little flags in the infobox. What do you think? I'm kinda new to this whole Wikipedia thing! Mbwa mwitu ( talk) 14:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

the reason is that different people started each article. I agree they should be merged. Rjensen ( talk) 14:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Why did you revert it back to roman numerals? This isn't the Spanish or French wiki. We don't use them for centuries. You either spell it out (e.g. sixteenth) or use ordinal numbers (e.g. 16th). You're supposedly a PhD. You should know this. Jonas Poole ( talk) 22:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

you edit note added an insulting vulgarity which is not allowed in Wiki. Please be polite. Rjensen ( talk) 23:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi! On the article History of Sweden (1945–1989) article, you have repeatedly written that Christer Petterson was acquitted "because of evidence issues" or "because of questions of evidence". Could you clarify what this means? Remember that an acquittal always means that there has not been enough evidence to convict the defendant, so saying that someone was acquitted due to insufficient evidence is actually redundant. I get the impression that you are trying to say that Petterson is somehow actually guilty and got off on technicalities. If this is the case, it should be documented by relevant citations, for example expert commentaries on the verdict. Otherwise, this may give the impression of original research or an attempt to smear Pettersson. Theis101 ( talk) 11:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

oh no--there are lots of possible reasons for reversal, and in this case it involved the evidence offered by Mrs Palme and no weapon. The info is covered in the main article on Pettersson. Rjensen ( talk) 15:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Why did you edit out my version about the drop in tariff levels and the reaction of 1937-38 ? The whole argument of blaming Smoot-Hawley for deepening the Great Depression is directly contradicted by these HISTORICAL FACTS. For you to IGNORE the other "non-tariff stuff" that attempts to link the rates to economic activity in a negative manner and to remove contradictiry evidence is ABSOLUTELY BIASED AND INCONSISTANT. PERIOD. I showed that when the tariff rate dropped ( a fact that you deemed "non-tariff" ???? ) there was NO CORRELATION BETWEEN TARIFF LEVELS AND ECONOMMIC ACTIVITY. I can quote Nobel prize-winning economist Milton Friedman ( The Great Contraction ) that stated it was the Feds' contraction of the money supply that had such devastating effects on economic activity. I might add that Mr. Friedman hated tariffs with a vengence. Any time you care to discuss or refute my evidence feel free to contact me.

Steven O'Connor oconnorfamsp@yahoo.com or phone me at 815-562-6217.-- 71.171.204.157 ( talk) 12:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles ( talk) 18:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not disputing what the sources say, but I will point out that some non-mainliners love to point this out, and routinely insert it into the intro without sources. Confession0791 ( talk) 00:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LII (June 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 19:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Rjensen. I appreciate your recent edits on the Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant. I understand about Crédit Mobilier not being a Grant Scandal, however, it has been listed as a Grant scandal in the past. I do not believe it is a Grant Scandal, only in the sense that his two VP's were involved with the Congressional bribery. The Emma Silver mine had to do with Schenck, a Grant appointment. However, if this is the case then the Grant scandals are only 10, rather then 12. Or would you consider Schenck giving his name to the Emmas Silver mine and Colfax/Wilson's acceptance of Crédit Mobilier stocks minor scandals? If this is the case on the Presidencial Scandals of USG article should I delete the above two scandals. Or in the Presidency of USG page should I put there were 10 major scandals? Cmguy777 ( talk) 18:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

well the involvement of Grant & his Grant administration in these cases was minimal. (the VP's were part of a scandal in Congress, and not the Grant Admin) and including them diverts attention away from the major scandals that readers should know more about. I would just say n=10 Rjensen ( talk) 19:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. I removed the 12 scandals on the opening of Presidency of USG article and added that there was government frauds in the Federal departments. I put in the Presidencial scandals of USG that the Crédit Mobilier was not a Grant Scandal and the Emma Silver mine was an "embarassent" rather then a scandal. I agree that more needs to be known about the Scandals. That is why I started the Scandal article. One scandal that remains perplexing is the Star Route Postal ring. Was the Post Secretary J.A.J Creswell involved? Did he know about the straw bidding? Why did he retire suddenly? I know he was an extremely talented administrator, however, did he profit from the Star Route Postal ring? Why did he suddenly retire without explaination? If you have any insight in the matter please let me know. Thanks. Cmguy777 ( talk) 00:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Good work. I'll look into the Creswell case when I get home in a few weeks. Rjensen ( talk) 06:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Rjensen. Did you find anything on the John Creswell situation as far as scandal? He had been censured by the minority Democrats in 1872, not for sure why? Another issue is that possibly the Crédit Mobilier scandal should be deleted all together and be replaced with the New York Customs house scandal. It seems that historians have tended to associate Crédit Mobilier unfairly with Grant. Cmguy777 ( talk) 00:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven/t seen anything new on Creswell, and I agree with you re Crédit Mobilier scandal Rjensen ( talk) 00:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Good, I can erase the Crédit Mobilier scandal. Thanks for your help! Cmguy777 ( talk) 04:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I took out Crédit Mobilier and Emma Silver mine in the USG scandal information chart. I gave the Emma Silver Mine its own web page. I took out the Crédit Mobilier and Emma Silver Mine from the USG presidential administration scandal page. I added the New York Custom House scandal since there were three congressional investigations involved. I guess that is it for the Grant scandals. I don't know of anything else. It seems that everything is covered. However, there may be one possible section to cover, the struggle between the reformers and the corrupt members, such as Hamilton Fish and Benjamin Bristow attempting to thwart the criminal mastermind Orville Babcock. Another possible section would be on Babcock himself, how he seemed to be behind every bit of corruption from the Gold Panic to the Whiskey Ring. It is sad how one person had so much control over President Grant. Cmguy777 ( talk) 04:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rjensen, I took a look at the History of Slavery and penal labor articles, and thought it would be a good idea to move some of the deleted content to a more on-topic article instead of giving it up for lost. I started by relocating some content about the Soviet Gulags to the Penal labor article, and I've posted about it in Talk:History of slavery/Archive 1#Forced labor content - where can it be moved?; I would appreciate your thoughts on the matter. Thanks!

-- Joren ( talk) 02:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the heads up. I agree with the move plan. I made some additions and suggestions. Rjensen ( talk) 05:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Rjensen, You've changed the Propaganda article, but I didn't manage to find any word from you in the discussion page. Wouldn't you like to share your opinion, the reason why you've found it important to make the changes? Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.210.28.9 ( talk) 16:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Rjensen, You've changed the Propaganda article, but I didn't manage to find any word from you in the discussion page. Wouldn't you like to share your opinion, the reason why you've found it important to make the changes? Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.210.28.9 ( talk) 16:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I found a source, Allen C. Guelzo, that states Lincoln was for compensation emancipation with the vote of the people. The source I used claimed that Lincoln proposed constitutional amendments. I am not sure why it said that. However, I believe that someplace in the Article it should be known what Lincoln had desired for the slaves. Lincoln seems to have gone the Thomas Jefferson route of emancipation and deportation. Catton says that Lincoln was a Radical who used a moderate approach. Lincoln's reconstruction agenda, however, appears to be very moderate. Do you believe that someplace the Lincoln compensation, emancipation, and deportation approved by vote should be mentioned in the article? Cmguy777 ( talk) 04:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

On July 23, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article International Federation of Trade Unions, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- Cirt ( talk) 18:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Rjensen. I would appreciate it if you read my reasoning for including what you call "useless details" in Leopold's bio. As I state on the talk page, I'm slowly but surely rewriting the article, and a comprehensive article does require some background. I don't want to edit war with you, so I would appreciate it if you would reinstate my edits. The major biographies I have at my disposal make a point of including quite a bit of detail about Leopold's background and upbringing, so it's obviously of note. The article will certainly take time to fill out, but have faith; seeing as how I have written quite a few GA and FA level biographies, I believe I know what I'm doing. ;) Thanks for your time, María ( habla con migo) 20:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

A Wiki article is a brief summary of the important facts--and will run maybe 3% of this size of a biography. Peripheral info that works well in a 350 page book does not work for us.

I note that you added info about the US to the Conservation movement article. It now suffers from systemic bias towards the US. Can you move the info to the Conservation in the United States article? Cheers. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 10:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

the article needs a global reach and that has to include the USA. I did add more on various countries. Rjensen ( talk) 19:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi there!

I found you by looking for editors interested in the 19th century. I've just finished an article about the Singer Model 27 and 127 sewing machines and I'd enjoy hearing your take on it. Thank you. :) Txinviolet ( talk) 17:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear R,

While the book by Pippin, Robert B. Hollywood Westerns and American Myth: The Importance of Howard Hawks and John Ford for Political Philosophy, should be directly added to the articles of Hawks, Ford, and (if there was one) Hollywood Westerns, it should added as an inline citation to articles like Red River and The Searchers, and not just added in general. Since the entire book is not about that topic directly, it should be cited with pages instead.

On another note, how is the clean up going from the sever weather they had this year in Billings?

THNKS. >> Best O Fortuna ( talk) 23:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the tip. Billings looks OK, but our roof and deck need to be replaced and I have not gotten around to it yet. Rjensen ( talk) 00:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope you get your repairs fixed up before winter.

RE: Pippin's book: I could see that the films mentioned in the book (namely Red River, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, and The Searchers) have influenced the viewers that have seen the film (s); especially if they were young and malleable. But, isn't Pippin over analyzing the motives of the original authors (of which the films are based on) and the subsequent script writers, director (s), and producers of the films? Aren't they here (especially the studios) to make money? Do fiction writers (for the most part) really try to steer political thoughts? Aren't half of the writers out there just trying to tell a personal story and pay the bills? Additionally, how many people have not even seen these films? Politically active people born after 1980, that are not film buffs, probably have a hard time remembering if they have even seen these films, and if they have, they just wanted to be entertained for two hours, not have their political thoughts shaped. Professors like Pippin are going to show those three films in a political class, and then ask for the students to comment on them. But consider the setting. He is predicating the outcome of their comments with the setting. I have to say that he is over analyzing things and has time goes on (from the initial point of release) these films have less and less influence over voters outside of those in history, politics, and film classes. "Joe the plumber" just wants to escape for two hours and see some fists and bullets fly, he cares nothing about the fact that the producers, directors, and writers might be trying to motivate him in any additional manner. And, if he could be swayed so easily, that scares the hell out of me. > Best O Fortuna ( talk) 00:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

well I partly agree. On the other hand there is a depth to the films that engages serious scholars, and Wiki readers need to know that. People looking for 120 minutes entertainment will ignore Pippin in any case, but in my opinion, serious students of film and American culture will want to know about that book. Rjensen ( talk) 00:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

RJ,

On another note: Wasn't one of the key figures in Crédit Mobilier of America scandal that of James "Big Jim" Fisk, Jr.? He got caught, together with the UP's Durant, in the Tammany Hall scandal, in which they were supposed to be on the "same side." But then Fisk (after getting caught there) turned around and filed a lawsuit (Fisk v. Union Pacific) which, wasn't it one of the major factors that brought about the public's notice in Crédit Mobilier of America? But, Fisk receives no mention in either the Tammany article, or more especially the Crédit Mobilier of America scandal article. I thought that this lawsuit was a big deal in generating public attention in the matter? THNKS. >> Best O Fortuna ( talk) 01:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

yes I agree with you regarding Jim Fisk...look at The Gold Ring : Jim Fisk, Jay Gould, and Black Friday, 1869 by Kenneth D. Ackerman (2005) Rjensen ( talk) 01:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I saw you [ http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Zimbabwe&diff=prev&oldid=378076437 in Zimbabwe] recently ... -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 23:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

thanks, I thought the article needed some recent books Rjensen ( talk) 23:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. When you add a book to a Wikipedia article, please do not add links to Amazon. This promotes a commercial site. RJC ^Talk _Contribs 02:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I only link to the Amazon service that provides free excerpts of the book and text searching; This is a very valuable service to Wiki users and does not "promote a commercial site" (of course the book itself is usually a commercial product). Rjensen ( talk) 02:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:ELNO, #15. I trust that you will remove these links. RJC ^Talk _Contribs 04:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

OK I fixed the links. Rjensen ( talk) 04:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The links still go to Amazon. I'm not sure how this fixes the problem of linking to Amazon rather than to a noncommercial site. RJC ^Talk _Contribs 04:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules do not insist on linking to a noncommercial site. Rjensen ( talk) 04:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, WP:ELNO #15: "instead of linking to a commercial book site, consider the "ISBN" linking format." Or just #5 of links to be avoided: "Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services." RJC ^Talk _Contribs 05:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I did consider the ISBN linking format; however it provides none of the advantages for our users--such as full text of many pages, and the ability to search the entire text --this is a very powerful feature for users wondering if the book will be of major value to them. They can then get it at public libraries. the pages linked do not primarily exists to sell products or services. Rjensen ( talk) 05:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually they do. You have to log into your Amazon account to use them, they are a way of attracting customers. They shouldn't be used. Dougweller ( talk) 18:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

the pages being linked are invaluable and free to Wiki users--cutting off access in order punishes our users to no one's advantage. Wikipedia of course is structured (as in its copyright policy) to maximize its use by commercial firms. Fears that reading a Wiki article might lead a user or a library to buy a book seem wildly out of place when we are creating lists of recommended readings. Rjensen ( talk) 19:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Ancient Greece. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. The question of links to the Amazon.com preview reader was raised on Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard and decided against, Amazon.com is clearly implied in ##5 and 15 of WP:ELNO, and both Dougweller and I have left messages on your talk page directing your attention to the impropriety of the links. RJC ^Talk _Contribs 22:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

links to commercial products--books--are essential to the RS guidelines of Wikipedia. Links to their table of contents and to text search engines that can verify statements in Wiki articles likewise are essential to the RS and verification policies. Wikipedia articles have "further reading" sections that recommend books, and it is alarmist to argue be afraid that an individual or a library might actually purchase one of our recommended titles. Rjensen ( talk) 23:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I saw that you edited this article to reduce POV. Specifically you changed:

• He was representative of the last generation of black leaders born in slavery and spoke for those blacks who had remained in modus vivendi with racist white Southerners in the exploitative racist atmosphere of the post – reconstruction South.

to

• He was representative of the last generation of black leaders born in slavery and spoke on behalf of blacks living in the South.

I like the style of your edit and its simplification of unneeded rhetoric and agree that it reduced the level of POV slanting of the article. I have done a couple of edits on the article; I'd looked at that particular bit of rhetoric and had chosen to merely work on style rather than risk an editing war.

Regards. Trilobitealive ( talk) 21:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

thanks! Rjensen ( talk) 00:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.